Replies

Is it meaningful that Jesus called him "Simon, son of John" the last recorded time He spoke to him (Simon)?

Not really, if you're arguing that Simon is not really Peter the rock because Jesus here does not include that name. He's already referred to as Simon Peter in the same text, Simon "the Rock". When Jesus gave Simon the additional name "Peter", He wasn't saying Peter was a physical rock, a mineral substance, and that Simon had ceased to be. He was using a metaphor to express a profound truth about Peter's new calling, to be the Rock (or foundation) on which the Church was built. He was still Simon, but now with the additional name of Peter. Throughout the New Testament he is called Simon, Simon Peter, or just Peter.

If you're proposing here that Jesus forgot that he had earlier called Simon by the name "Peter", well then you've got a whole other problem. That's the only argument that I could think of to assert that this verse has any bearing on the question of Peter's primacy. Another argument, I suppose, would be to say that Christ is somehow "taking back" the name Peter and the keys and the power of binding and loosing. Is that what you're trying to say, because there's no Scripture anywhere to suggest that. The fact that Jesus calls him Simon here and not Peter proves nothing.

If you're proposing here that Jesus forgot that he had earlier called Simon by the name "Peter", well then you've got a whole other problem. That's the only argument that I could think of to assert that this verse has any bearing on the question of Peter's primacy. Another argument, I suppose, would be to say that Christ is somehow "taking back" the name Peter and the keys and the power of binding and loosing. Is that what you're trying to say, because there's no Scripture anywhere to suggest that. The fact that Jesus calls him Simon here and not Peter proves nothing.

Actually, for any of this to be true, one would have to start with the premise that Jesus Christ was not aware of what Saint Peter would subsequently do.

Perhaps it was a means by which to remind Peter of his humble origins and his humanity so that when faced with the awesome responsibility of caring for Jesus’ flock, he would remember that he can do nothing without God.

Peter was the son of a man, not the Son of God and so always just a man rather than God, Himself subject to all the frailties of humanity and dependent on the Holy Spirit.

When one considers the enormous commission Jesus had just placed on him, it seems important that Jesus would also remind him that what he is and what he will do is all by the grace and strength that God will give him.

Pretty pathetic to isolate this one verse and claim absolute authority that is disparaged when that same claim is made by the Church.

Or perhaps it was just a moment and feeling of endearment as Jesus prepared to leave him, this man with whom Jesus had traveled for three years. A gentle expression of love and tenderness, remembering the simple fisherman, a humble man of faith who would now be pulled to places where he did not want to go and to suffer as he would not want to suffer.

Is it meaningful that Jesus called him "Simon, son of John" the last recorded time He spoke to him (Simon)?

"Not really, if you're arguing that Simon is not really Peter the rock because Jesus here does not include that name..."

Why do you find it necessary to provide a few resons of your choosing? If you wish to ask me a question simply ask it and refrain from providing your canned choices.

The answer is simple. The distinction you make between "Simon" and "Peter" didn't mean the same to Jesus as it does to you. Of course Jesus wasn't forced into creative interpretations to support false doctrine.